HUMAN MOVEMENT

2014, vol. 15 (2), 74– 79

Physical fitness in female soccer players by player position:

a focus on anaerobic power

doi: 10.2478/humo-2014-0006

Pantelis T. Nikolaidis 1, 2
1
Department of Physical and Cultural Education, Hellenic Army Academy, Athens, Greece
2
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Nikaia, Greece

Abstract
Purpose. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between player position and physical fitness, with an emphasis
on anaerobic power, in female soccer players. Methods. For this purpose, 54 first league female soccer players were recruited.
They included goalkeepers (n = 4, age 22.89 ± 4.37 years), defenders (n = 21, 21.92 ± 3.81 years), midfielders (n = 22, 21.71 ± 4.70
years) and attackers (n = 7, 20.43 ± 4.70 years). Participants’ anthropometric characteristics were measured and a physical fitness
test battery was administered. Results. Significant differences were observed in body fat percentage (F3,50 = 3.06, p = 0.036,
ŋ 2 = 0.16) with goalkeepers being fatter than defenders (mean difference 6.1%; 95% CI 0.3,11.9). Positional differences were also
found in the sit-and-reach test (F3,50 = 4.46, p = 0.007, ŋ 2 = 0.21), in which goalkeepers scored lower than defenders (–11.4 cm;
95% CI –21.4, –1.5) and midfielders (–10.0 cm; 95% CI –19.9, 0). Comparison of fat mass and endomorphy were statistically
significant (p = 0.057 and p = 0.062, respectively), with goalkeepers showing the highest values; these differences were in the same
direction as with body fat percentage. No positional differences were found in the other physical fitness components (aerobic
capacity, anaerobic power, and muscle strength). Conclusions. Differences among player positions were observed in body
composition (highest body fat percentage in goalkeepers) and flexibility (lowest score in goalkeepers). These trends are in agree-
ment with previously published data concerning elite soccer players. These findings might be used as reference data by coach-
es and trainers to identify talent, select players, and monitor training.

Key words: body fat percentage, endomorphy, Wingate anaerobic test, playing roles, soccer

Introduction attackers were recorded with higher values than mid-

In the daily practice of sport, profiling the physical
and physiological characteristics of elite athletes helps
coaches and fitness trainers identify talent, select players,
and design appropriate training programs. Since female
soccer players are assigned to a particular position, it is
desirable to study their profile according to their role
on the field.
Typically, soccer players are classified into four groups:
goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders, and attackers [1–5],
although another classification system has been used,
grouping players into goalkeepers, central defenders,
full backs, central midfielders, wide midfielders, and at-
tackers [6]. These studies have revealed differences in
the physiological characteristics depending on player
position. It has been shown that defenders possess bet-
ter aerobic capacity than goalkeepers, as indicated by
scores calculated by running speed at the anaerobic
threshold [1]. Wide midfielders were found to have bet-
ter aerobic power than central defenders and attackers
in a study using the Yo-Yo intermittent endurance test
[6]. These positional differences in aerobic power are
in agreement with corresponding differences during
match play, where it has been noticed that midfielders
cover larger distances than defenders [2]. In addition,
research on young soccer players has shown that mid-
fielders cover a greater distance than defenders, espe-
cially in low- and moderate-speed running, whereas
fielders in sprint distance, number of sprints, and maxi-
mum speed [5].
The contribution of the abovementioned research to
our understanding of positional differences in female
soccer is important, but there are several aspects that
have not been fully examined and require further re-
search. For instance, there are limited data on player
position with regards to anaerobic power assessed by
laboratory methods (e.g. Wingate anaerobic test and
force–velocity test). Due to the physiological demands
of match play, which includes many high-intensity ac-
tivities of short duration (e.g. shooting, passing, sprint-
ing, jumping), anaerobic power is important for soccer
performance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to
examine the relationship between player position and
physical fitness, with an emphasis on anaerobic pow-
er, anthropometric characteristics, body composition,
and somatotype.
Material and methods
First league female soccer players (n = 54) were re-
cruited to participate in the study, classified according
player position as: goalkeepers (n = 4, age 22.89 ± 4.37
years), defenders (n = 21, 21.92 ± 3.81 years), midfield-
ers (n = 22, 21.71 ± 4.70 years), and attackers (n = 7,
20.43 ± 4.70 years) (Tab. 1). The study protocol was
performed in accordance with the ethical principles

74 Brought to you by | Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/20/18 2:14 AM

outlined in the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and ap-
proved by the local institutional review board. All mea-
surements were taken in a single testing session dur-
ing the 2009–2010 pre-season in laboratory conditions
on weekdays between 08:00 and 12:00 (temperature
22°C and humidity 45%). Participants were measured
for anthropometry, flexibility, aerobic capacity, muscle
strength, and anaerobic power as follows:
Anthropometry
Body mass and height were measured to the nearest
0.1 kg by a HD-351 electronic weight scale (Tanita, USA)
and to the nearest 1 mm using a portable stadiometer
(SECA, UK), respectively. From these data BMI was cal-
culated as the quotient of mass (kg) to height squared (m2).
During these measures, participants were barefoot and
in minimal clothing. Based on the prediction equation
of Parizkova [7], body fat percentage (BF) was estimated
from the sum of 10 skinfolds (cheek, chin, chest I, triceps,
subscapular, abdominal, chest II, suprailiac, thigh and
calf; BF = −41.32 + 12.59 × logex, where x the sum of
the 10 skinfolds). A two-component model of body com-
position [8] was used to divide body into fat mass (FM,
equaling mass × BF) and fat-free mass (FFM, equaling
mass − FM). We used the Heath-Carter method to evalu-
ate somatotype according to the procedures described
by Ross and Marfell-Jones [9]. Briefly, this method is
used to quantify the shape and composition of the hu-
man body, expressed as a three-number rating repre-
senting endomorphy (relative fatness), mesomorphy
(relative musculoskeletal robustness) and ectomorphy
(relative linearity or slenderness). Chronological age for
each participant was calculated using a table of deci-
mals for the day of the year [9].
Sit-and-reach test (SAR)
To evaluate low back and hamstring flexibility, the
SAR was performed using a box with a measuring scale
in cm with 15 cm at the level of the feet [10]. The par-
ticipants were instructed to sit on the floor with knees
fully extended and to reach forward as far as possible.
An experienced examiner ensured correct body posi-
tion. This test was performed twice without shoes; the
best result to the nearest 0.5 cm was recorded.
Physical working capacity at a heart rate (HR)
of 170 bpm (PWC170)
The participants completed the PWC170 test, con-
sisting of three 3-min consecutive stages of cycling at
1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 W∙ kg–1 on an 828E cycle ergometer
(Monark, Sweden) [11]. The selected workloads were
used to elicit HR between 120 and 170 bpm. Based on
the linear relationship between HR and power output,
PWC170 was calculated as the power corresponding to
a HR of 170 bpm, expressed as W and W ∙ kg–1. HR was
Brought to you by | Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
HUMAN MOVEMENT
P.T. Nikolaidis, Fitness in soccer by player position
recorded using a Team2 Pro heart monitor (Polar Electro
Oy, Finland).
Isometric muscle strength
Isometric strength testing was performed for right
handgrip, left handgrip, back, and back/leg strength [12].
In the handgrip test, players were instructed to squeeze
the handle of a hand dynamometer (Takei, Japan) as
hard as possible while standing with their elbow bent
at approximately 90°. In the back test, players pulled
the bar of a back dynamometer (Takei, Japan) at the
level of the patella by straightening their legs and backs.
In the back/leg test, players repeated the back test albeit
with the chain length of the dynamometer adjusted to
have participants squat over the dynamometer with
their knees flexed at approximately 30°. The sum of
these four strength measures was calculated to attain
total strength in kg and as kg ∙ kg–1 of body mass.
Force–velocity test (F–V)
The F–V test consisted of four sprints, each lasting
7 s and interspersed by 5 min recovery periods, against
an incremental braking force (2, 3, 4, and 5 kg) on an
874E cycle ergometer (Monark, Sweden) [13]. This test
was used to estimate maximal anaerobic power (Pmax),
expressed as W and as W ∙ kg–1, theoretical maximal ve-
locity (v0), and theoretical maximal force (F0).
Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT)
This test [13] was performed on the same ergome-
ter as the F–V test. Briefly, the participants were asked
to pedal as fast as possible for 30 s against a braking
force that was determined by the product of body
mass × 0.075. Peak power (Ppeak) was estimated as the
mean power over a 5 s period when the highest values
were recorded, which occurred usually in the first 5 s of
the test. Mean power (Pmean) was calculated as the aver-
age power during the 30 s period. Both Ppeak and Pmean
were expressed as W and W · kg–1. A fatigue index was
also calculated to estimate the decrease in performance
across the 30 s period and was expressed in %.
Statistical analysis
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviations.
All the variables were tested for normality and the
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for equality of distribution.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to ex-
amine the differences between goalkeepers, defenders,
midfielders, and attackers. Measures of effect size (ES)
in ANOVA were interpreted by eta-squared classified
as small (0.01 < ŋ 2 0.06), medium (0.06 < ŋ 2 0.14),
or large (ŋ 2 > 0.14) [14]. The level of significance was
set at = 0.05. SPSS 20.0 software (SPSS, USA) was
used for all statistical analyses.
75
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/20/18 2:14 AM
HUMAN MOVEMENT
P.T. Nikolaidis, Fitness in soccer by player position

Results Discussion

The physical characteristics, body composition and
somatotype of the participants by player position are
presented in Table 1. We observed significant differences
in BF percentage (large effect size) with goalkeepers being
fatter than defenders, with a mean difference of 6.1%
(95% CI 0.3, 11.9). In addition to the abovementioned
parameter, the comparisons of the means of FM and
endomorphy were statistically significant (p = 0.057 and
p = 0.062, respectively; large effect size), with goalkeepers
showing the highest values, and were in the same di-
rection as the differences in body fat percentage.
The values for aerobic power, isometric muscle strength,
and flexibility are shown in Table 2. Positional differences
were found in the sit-and-reach test (large effect size),
in which goalkeepers scored lower than the defenders
(−11.4 cm; 95% CI −21.4, −1.5) and midfielders (−10.0 cm;
95% CI −19.9, 0). Table 3 presents the results of the
WAnT and the F–V tests.
The main finding of this study was the large effect
of player position on BF and flexibility, including in-
dications for an effect of a similar magnitude on FM
and somatotype. Briefly, we observed that goalkeep-
ers were fatter than defenders and scored lower in the
flexibility test than defenders and midfielders. In ad-
dition, another finding that almost reached statistical
significance (p = ~0.06) with a large effect size suggested
that goalkeepers were more endomorphic and had more
FM than defenders.
Interestingly, although not statistically significant,
we noticed a trend of possible positional differences
with regards to muscle power output. The largest po-
sitional difference in power (W) was observed in the
F–V test (goalkeepers vs. midfielders ~135 W), where
the highest score was achieved by goalkeepers (Fig. 1).
Compared with the WAnT and PWC170, the F–V test has
the shortest duration but the highest intensity, taxing
mainly the ATP–CP energy pathway. When we exam-
ined performance in the WAnT, which taxes mainly

Table 1. Physical characteristics, body composition, and somatotype by player position

Goalkeepers Defenders Midfielders Attackers Comparison

(n = 4) (n = 21) (n = 22) (n = 7)

Age (years) 22.89 ± 4.37 21.92 ± 3.81 21.71 ± 4.70 20.43 ± 4.70 F3,50 = 0.36, p = 0.782, ŋ2 = 0.02
Mass (kg) 66.5 ± 6.9 59.6 ± 5.4 60.6 ± 8.6 59.4 ± 8.6 F3,50 = 1.19, p = 0.325, ŋ2 = 0.07
Height (cm) 166.3 ± 6.1 164.8 ± 4.5 163.6 ± 7.4 163.8 ± 7.4 F3,50 = 0.48, p = 0.482, ŋ2 = 0.03
BMI (kg · m–2) 24.0 ± 1.3 21.9 ± 1.7 22.6 ± 2.7 22.2 ± 2.8 F3,50 = 1.05, p = 0.379, ŋ2 = 0.06
BF (%) 27.8 ± 2.6D 21.7 ± 4.3G 23.6 ± 3.7 22.3 ± 3.4 F3,50 = 3.06, p = 0.036, ŋ2 = 0.16
FM (kg) 18.6 ± 3.3 13.1 ± 3.6 14.5 ± 3.8 13.4 ± 3.8 F3,50 = 2.67, p = 0.057, ŋ2 = 0.14
FFM (kg) 47.9 ± 4.1 46.5 ± 3.0 46.1 ± 4.4 46.0 ± 5.4 F3,50 = 0.25, p = 0.859, ŋ2 = 0.02
Endomorphy 6.8 ± 0.7 4.7 ± 1.6 5.4 ± 1.3 4.9 ± 1.2 F3,50 = 2.60, p = 0.062, ŋ2 = 0.14
Mesomorphy 4.9 ± 1.5 4.4 ± 1.1 4.9 ± 1.4 4.0 ± 1.3 F3,50 = 0.93, p = 0.434, ŋ2 = 0.05
Ectomorphy 1.3 ± 0.9 2.3 ± 0.9 1.9 ± 1.4 2.1 ± 1.6 F3,50 = 1.00, p = 0.401, ŋ2 = 0.05
BMI – body mass index, BF – body fat percentage, FM – fat mass, FFM – fat-free mass; letters in superscript denote differences
from the respective playing position (D – defenders; G – goalkeepers)

Table 2. Aerobic power, muscle strength, and flexibility by player position

Goalkeepers Defenders Midfielders Attackers Comparison

(n = 4) (n = 21) (n = 22) (n = 7)
PWC170 (W) 135 ± 24 131 ± 29 127 ± 28 137 ± 31 F3,50 = 0.24, p = 0.865, ŋ2 = 0.01
PWC170 (W ∙ kg–1) 2.02 ± 0.23 2.21 ± 0.44 2.11 ± 0.47 2.28 ± 0.19 F3,50 = 0.50, p = 0.685, ŋ2 = 0.03
Right hand (kg) 33.9 ± 8.6 31.7 ± 4.6 30.5 ± 4.6 30.5 ± 4.3 F3,50 = 0.68, p = 0.567, ŋ2 = 0.04
Left hand (kg) 33.0 ± 4.4 29.2 ± 3.5 29.5 ± 4.6 26.9 ± 3.6 F3,50 = 1.91, p = 0.139, ŋ2 = 0.10
Trunk (kg) 95.4 ± 10.8 83.6 ± 13.7 85.1 ± 15.0 89.6 ± 14.6 F3,50 = 0.96, p = 0.417, ŋ2 = 0.06
Legs (kg) 131.6 ± 9.2 108.5 ± 25.9 106.2 ± 21.2 106.4 ± 31.0 F3,50 = 1.30, p = 0.284, ŋ2 = 0.07
Strength (kg) 293.9 ± 18.1 253.0 ± 42.4 251.5 ± 41.5 253.5 ± 40.2 F3,50 = 1.29, p = 0.287, ŋ2 = 0.07
Strength (kg ∙ kg–1) 4.44 ± 0.40 4.26 ± 0.74 4.16 ± 0.52 4.26 ± 0.30 F3,50 = 0.31, p = 0.822, ŋ2 = 0.02
SAR (cm) 14.4 ± 4.8D,M 25.8 ± 6.1G 24.3 ± 7.1G 19.1 ± 7.6 F3,50 = 4.46, p = 0.007, ŋ2 = 0.21
PWC170 – physical working capacity at 170 bpm, SAR – sit-and-reach test; letters in superscript denote differences
from the respective playing position (D – defenders, M – midfielders, G – goalkeepers)

76 Brought to you by | Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/20/18 2:14 AM
 HUMAN MOVEMENT
P.T. Nikolaidis, Fitness in soccer by player position

Table 3. Wingate anaerobic test and Force–velocity test scores by player position

Goalkeepers Defenders Midfielders Attackers

Comparison
(n = 4) (n = 21) (n = 22) (n = 7)
Ppeak (W) 658 ± 29 570 ± 63 577 ± 78 571 ± 85 F3,44 = 1.37, p = 0.264, ŋ2 = 0.09
Ppeak (W ∙ kg–1) 9.41 ± 0.24 9.50 ± 0.79 9.57 ± 0.78 9.44 ± 0.70 F3,44 = 0.07, p = 0.974, ŋ2 = 0.01
Pmean (W) 489 ± 14 423 ± 48 432 ± 50 426 ± 59 F3,43 = 1.60, p = 0.204, ŋ2 = 0.10
Pmean (W ∙ kg–1) 7.00 ± 0.06 7.07 ± 0.83 7.21 ± 0.70 7.07 ± 0.87 F3,43 = 0.14, p = 0.934, ŋ2 = 0.01
FI (%) 47.5 ± 6.4 47.8 ± 10.2 44.2 ± 7.1 44.1 ± 4.9 F3,43 = 0.72, p = 0.545, ŋ2 = 0.05
Pmax (W) 844 ± 135 768 ± 121 709 ± 78 785 ± 127 F3,45 = 2.25, p = 0.096, ŋ2 = 0.13
Pmax (W ∙ kg–1) 12.68 ± 1.35 12.84 ± 1.96 11.93 ± 1.73 13.22 ± 1.46 F3,45 = 1.25, p = 0.303, ŋ2 = 0.08
V0 (rpm) 188 ± 14 182 ± 12 187 ± 13 188 ± 12 F3,45 = 0.65, p = 0.584, ŋ2 = 0.04
F0 (kg) 18.1 ± 3.7 17.0 ± 3.2 15.2 ± 2.0 16.8 ± 3.4 F3,45 = 1.78, p = 0.165, ŋ2 = 0.11
Ppeak – peak power, Pmean – mean power, FI – fatigue index, Pmax – maximal power, v0 – theoretical maximal velocity,
F0 – theoretical maximal force

the anaerobic glycolytic energy transfer system, the highest
value was again scored by goalkeepers, but there were
smaller positional differences than in the F–V test (goal-
keepers vs. defenders ~66 W). This difference was almost
negligible in the PWC170, a test of the aerobic energy
transfer system, where the largest difference was ~10 W
(attackers vs. midfielders). This trend might be attributed
to the positional-specific actions of goalkeepers during
match play and training, which are of high intensity
and short duration.
In contrast, we did not find a similar trend as above
when muscle power output was expressed in W ∙ kg–1
(Fig. 2), where the highest scores were not found in
goalkeepers but in outfielders. The widest range of dif-
ferences was ~1.29 (attackers vs. midfielders) for Pmax,
~0.21 W ∙ kg–1 (midfielders vs. goalkeepers) for Pmean, and
~0.26 W ∙ kg–1 (attackers vs. goalkeepers) for PWC170
W · kg–1. It seems that the increased mass in goalkeepers,
even if it is due to increased FM, provides this group
with an advantage in terms of power output over out-
fielders (when expressed as an absolute value, i.e. W).
However, when we took into account mass, with these
parameters expressed in W ∙ kg–1, the effect of player
position was reduced or reversed. This may be due to the
fact that anaerobic power was tested with two widely
used and traditional protocols (WAnT and F–V test) on
a cycle ergometer. In this mode of exercise, mass is sup-
ported by the ergometer and might mask the negative
effect of excess mass, whereas in running, excess mass
must be carried and therefore may affect performance.
Since this is the first study, to the best of our knowl-
edge, investigating the relationship between player po-
sition and anaerobic power with the WAnT in a popu-
lation of female soccer players, there were no data to
compare our findings. However, when compared with
normative data on intercollegiate high-level female
athletes [15], Ppeak and Pmean (W) were evaluated as “above
average” in goalkeepers and “average” in outfielders,

Figure 1. Power output (W) in the three tests by player Figure 2. Power output (W ∙ kg–1) in the three tests
position: Force–velocity test (Pmax – maximal power), by player position: Force–velocity test (Pmax – maximal
Wingate anaerobic test (Pmean – mean power), and physical power), Wingate anaerobic test (Pmean – mean power),
working capacity at a heart rate of 170 bpm (PWC170) and physical working capacity at a heart rate
of 170 bpm (PWC170)
Brought to you by | Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) 77
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/20/18 2:14 AM
HUMAN MOVEMENT
P.T. Nikolaidis, Fitness in soccer by player position
whereas they were “average” for all player positions
when expressed as W ∙ kg–1.
These findings have practical implications for soccer
performance, as previous research has indicated that
the scores in the WAnT and in the F–V test might be
predictive of athletic performance. For instance, the in-
dices of the F–V test have been shown to correlate with
indices of soccer performance [16–18]. In research on
young male soccer players [16], Pmax, v0, and F0 were
correlated with acceleration during a 5 m sprint, whereas
research on sprinters [17] found Pmax correlated with per-
formance in a 10 m sprint. Moreover, Pmax was corre-
lated with jumping ability, indicating its affinity with leg
muscle strength [18]. It has been also found that the
F–V test can classify male soccer players depending on
their age, with older soccer players scoring higher values
than their younger counterparts [19]. The main indices
of the WAnT (Ppeak and Pmean) have also been shown to
correlate with sprint performance, especially when ex-
pressed in W ∙ kg–1 [20].
Surprisingly, goalkeepers scored lower in the sit-and-
reach test than defenders and midfielders, and the over-
all performance of all positions was below average. Al-
though flexibility is a component of physical fitness in
which women score higher than men, our findings were
comparable with those of male soccer players [21]. These
results highlight the need for flexibility training in our
sample of female soccer players especially for goalkeepers.
Among outfielders the lowest score was recorded in at-
tackers, which is in agreement with research on positional
differences in male soccer players [22] and might be
attributed to the lower number of direction changes
they perform during play.
The main drawback of this study was that the sample
size was inadequate to provide statistically significant
findings even in cases where a moderate or large effect
size was indicated by eta squared. Although the total
number (n = 54) of soccer players was one of the largest
ever studied in female soccer, two groups (goalkeepers,
n = 4, and attackers, n = 7) were relatively underrepre-
sented. This has been a frequent limitation in previous
studies that have examined positional differences in
female soccer players [1–4], where the samples of partici-
pants ranged from n = 17 [2] to n = 29 [1] and the sample
of goalkeepers was quite small (e.g. n = 3 [1, 4], n = 2
[3]). On the other hand, this is the first study to report
data on the anaerobic power of female soccer players
using two laboratory methods (WAnT and F–V test)
by player position and, therefore, might serve as nor-
mative data in future research.
Conclusions
Differences between player positions were observed
in body composition (highest body fat percentage in
goalkeepers) and flexibility (lowest score in goalkeepers).
These trends are in agreement with previously published
78
data concerning elite soccer players. Although no po-
sitional differences were found between the groups for
anaerobic power, these findings might be used as refer-
ence data by coaches and trainers to identify talent,
select players, and monitor training.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the soccer players for their participation
in this study. This research was performed without funding
from outside sources.
References
1. Ingebrigtsen J., Dillern T., Shalfawi S.A., Aerobic capaci-
ties and anthropometric characteristics of elite female
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res, 2011, 25 (12), 3352–
3357, doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318215f763.
2. Andersson H.A., Randers M.B., Heiner-Moller A., Krus-
trup P., Mohr M., Elite female soccer players perform more
high-intensity running when playing in international
games compared with domestic league games. J Strength
Cond Res, 2010, 24 (4), 912–919, doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e
3181d09f21.
3. Milanovic Z., Sporis G., Trajkovic N., Differences in body
composite and physical match performance in female
soccer players according to team position. J Hum Sport Exerc,
2012, 7 (1), S67–S72, doi: 10.4100/jhse.2012.7.Proc1.08.
4. Sporis G., Canaki M., Barisic V., Morphological differences
of elite Croatian female soccer players according to team
position. Hrvat Sportskomed Vjesn, 2007, 22, 91–96.
5. Vescovi J.D., Motion Characteristics of Youth Women
Soccer Matches: Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) Study.
Int J Sports Med, 2014, 35 (2), 110–117. doi: 10.1055/s-0033
-1345134.
6. Bradley P.S., Bendiksen M., Dellal A., Mohr M., Wilkie A.,
Datson N. et al., The application of the Yo-Yo intermittent
endurance level 2 test to elite female soccer populations.
Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2014, 24 (1), 43–54. doi: 10.1111/
j.1600-0838.2012.01483.x.
7. Parizkova J., Body fat and physical fitness. Martinus
Nijhoff, The Hague 1977.
8. Wang Z.M., Pierson R.N.Jr., Heymsfield S.B., The five-
level model: a new approach to organizing body-com-
position research. Am J Clin Nutr, 1992, 56 (1),19–28.
9. Ross W.D., Marfell-Jones M.J., Kinanthropometry. In:
MacDougall J.D., Wenger H.A., Green H.J. (eds.), Physio-
logical testing of the high-performance athlete. Human
Kinetics, Champaign 1991.
10. Ayala F., Sainz de Baranda P., De Ste Croix M., San-
tonja F., Absolute reliability of five clinical tests for as-
sessing hamstring flexibility in professional futsal players.
J Sci Med Sport, 2012, 15 (2), 142–147, doi: 10.1016/j.
jsams.2011.10.002.
11. Bland J., Pfeiffer K., Eisenmann J.C., The PWC170: com-
parison of different stage lengths in 11–16 year olds.
Eur J Appl Physiol, 2012, 112 (5), 1955–1961, doi: 10.1007/
s00421-011-2157-z.
12. Heyward V.H., Advanced fitness assessment and exercise
prescription. Human Kinetics, Champaign 2010.
13. Driss T., Vandewalle H., The measurement of maximal
(anaerobic) power output on a cycle ergometer: a critical
review. BioMed Res Int, 2013, doi: 10.1155/2013/589361.
Brought to you by | Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
Authenticated
Download Date | 3/20/18 2:14 AM
 HUMAN MOVEMENT
P.T. Nikolaidis, Fitness in soccer by player position

14. Cohen J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale 1988.
15. Zupan M.F., Arata A.W., Dawson L.H., Wile A.L., Payn T.L.,
Hannon M.E., Wingate Anaerobic Test peak power and
anaerobic capacity classifications for men and women
intercollegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res, 2009, 23 (9),
2598–2604, doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b1b21b.
16. Chelly M.S., Cherif N., Amar M.B., Hermassi S., Fath­
loun M., Bouhlel E. et al., Relationship of peak leg power,
1 maximal repetition half back squat, and leg muscle
volume to 5-m sprint performance of junior soccer players.
J Strength Cond Res, 2010, 24 (1), 266–271, doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181c3b298.
17. Morin J.B., Hintzy F., Belli A., Grappe F., Force-velocity
relationships and sprint running performances in trained
athletes. Sci Sports, 2002, 17 (2), 78–85, doi: 10.1016/
S0765-1597(02)00124-7.
18. Bouhlel E., Bouhlel H., Chelly M.S., Tabka Z., Relation­
ship between maximal anaerobic power measured by
force-velocity test and performance in the counter move-
ment jump and in the 5-jump test in moderately trained
boys. Sci Sports, 2006, 21 (1), 1–7, doi: 10.1016/j.scispo.
2005.08.004.
19. Nikolaidis P.T., Age-related differences in force-velocity
characteristics in youth soccer. Kinesiol, 2012, 44 (2),
130–138.
20. Perez-Gomez J., Rodriguez G.V., Ara I., Olmedillas H., Cha­
varren J., González-Henriquez J.J. et al., Role of muscle
mass on sprint performance: Gender differences? Eur J
Appl Physiol, 2008, 102 (6), 685–694, doi: 10.1007/500421
-007-0648-8.
21. Nikolaidis P.T., Age-related differences of hamstring flexi-
bility in male soccer players. Baltic J Health Phys Activ,
2012, 4 (2), 110–115, doi: 10.2478/v10131-012-0012-1.
22. Sporis G., Vucetic V., Jovanovic M., Jukic I., Omrcen D.,
Reliability and factorial validity of flexibility tests for team
sports. J Strength Cond Res, 2011, 25 (4), 1168–1176,
doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181cc2334.

Paper received by the Editors: February 2, 2014

Papert accepted for publication: May 26, 2014

Correspondence address
Pantelis Nikolaidis
Thermopylon 7
18450 Nikaia, Greece
e-mail: pademil@hotmail.com

Brought to you by | Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) 79

Authenticated
Download Date | 3/20/18 2:14 AM